Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-01-07

l., NoHliflllllS Ufant 10 Lands to
Northern Pacific Railroad Company
on Line from Portland to Kalama.
In re The United States vs. The Northern Pacific
Kailroad Company ct al; opinion on Plaintiffs
demurrer to amended answer.
The questions in this case are per-
haps the most important ever pre-
sentcd to Il Court in this Territory
and the argument of counsel has been
able, thorough and earnest, as it
should be when questions of much inn
portancr are under consideration.
gave my best attention to the oral
argument and have examined all the
available authorities cited in the vol
luminous briefs filed, together with
such others as have been able to find
bearing upon the questions, and have
so far satisfied myself that am ready,
rs an inferior Court, to decide the
matter and thus, so far as ! can, aid in
a speedy determination of the ques-
tions by the Court of last resort.
Two questions are presented.
First, Was there any grant of lands
by the United States to aid in the con-
struction of that portion of the main
line OF the Northern Pacific Railroad.
situated between Portland and Ia
coma.
Second, If there was such grant
do the allegations of the answer show
that the lands in question in this ac-
ton were SO selected as to become the
property of said railroad company as
lieu or indemnity lands upon such
line.
The second question, though intrin-
sically an important one, is not so
comparatively, and received much less
| attention at the hands of counsel than
the former and l shall say what deem
necessary as to that first.
The answer sets up the definite loea-
ton and building of the road; the ex-
animation, acceptance and certifying
by Commissioners, duly appointed !;
the acceptance and approval of the
report of such Commissioners and the
acceptance of the road by the Presi-
dent and the issuance by him of pa
tents to the company for a portion of
the granted lands on said line.
1t further alleges that there were
losses to the company within the forty
mile limit, by reason of pre-emption
and other claims, and that the lands
in question were duly selected as lieu
Lands, lnder the direction of the Sec
retary Of the Interior, and that under
his direction the list of such selections
had been duly filed and approved by
the Register and Receiver of the U. S.
Land Office at Olympia, and that said
land was within the lieu limits.
Counsel for the Government insists
that these are insufficient for the rca-
son: First, that these indemnity Sc
selections could only be made by the
joint act of the Secretary of the Inter
ior and the company, and second, that
no right to select such indemnity
lands accrued rs to any portion of the
line of road from the Lakes to the
Sound, until such line had all been
completed and accepted, as required in
the granting act, as a continuous com.
pleted whole, and he substantially con.
cedes that if one or both Of these pro.
positions is not true that then the said
allegations are sufficient to show the
regular selection OF the land in ques
ton
Was it the intention of the grant
ing act that these indemnity selections
should be made by the joint act of the
Secretary of the interior and the Com
pany? l think not, for to my mind
such is not the reasonable and fail
Interpretation of the language used
to wit "other lands shall be selected
by said Company in lieu thereof, un